January 15, 2011
— rdbrewer
This is part of a debate I had with a friend named "Tad" a while back. He was arguing the Laurence Tribe side of Constitutional law.
[W]hen the judge is required to make such a moral decision, the judge should make a constitutional decision which best fits with contemporary understandings of the moral principles . . . .
This is very loose. You could even replace the second occurrence of "moral" with "cultural" or "accepted." There is no room for an absolute truth or right or wrong. "Contemporary understanding" leaves too much to the anointed, the self-regarded elite—the gatekeepers of "contemporary understanding." Just because Tribe and his cocktail party familiars may think something is "moral" does not necessarily make it so. Slavery was morally acceptable 200 years ago, but it was never moral in an absolute sense. Maybe Tribe's future twin will find slavery again fits our understanding of contemporary moral principles 50 years from now, requiring repeal of the Thirteenth Amendment—perfectly acceptable to Tad and Tribe. Thus, the moral-equals-contemporary-understanding position is equivocal and unreliable, more of an article of faith than a rationale. Its real purpose is rhetorical, to sprinkle the word "moral" like sugar over the turd "politics."
However, a judge interpreting a constitution will often find that the constitution explicitly requires that the judge make a moral decision . . . .
"Often." Yes! That's the problem. Occasionally, rarely, there are times when a decision must truly be driven by moral considerations, but for some judges these occasions seem to come up quite frequently. So, I agree, certain judges "will often find" the Constitution requires him/her to wet a finger and stick it in the shifting moral wind which—for this type of judge, the Nihilist Warthog—always blows in one direction. Strange how that happens, isn’t it? The moral principles they find to be contemporary always require them to shift the law in a direction that happens to align with their own political views. Amazing. And, look, "moral" and "political" in the same sentence again.
I don't agree with this view [that a judge should attempt to discern the moral principles of the framers that underly the particular constitutional provision], largely because I have real doubts about legislators or contitutional drafters generally intending that their moral views should be binding on future generations when those generations are called upon to make moral choices.
This is wrong. First, men are flawed and naturally self-interested. This is not a shifting “moral view.” Thus, in order to form civil society, there has to be a social contract, and part of that contract establishes some degree of monopoly-like power to enforce other parts of the contract. Unless the anointed (Tad and Tribe) are running things, this enforcement mechanism, run by mortals, is dangerous. So restraints are also built into the contract to protect against abuse. Since abuse can never be completely eliminated, yes, the framers intended to bind future generations. The Constitution dwells on these restraints at length because they are the only thing between liberty and the harsh control of flawed man. What about this changes with contemporary understanding?
Second, much of the Constitution is based on ideas about Natural Law which are, by definition, absolute—or else due process is just another one of your shifting "moral principles.” Third, your concern for the intent of the framers is not credible. Fourth, you use the word "moral" like it magically applies to all Constitutional exegesis. If everything is "morals" based—in your usage of the term—then nothing the framers wrote can be true, right, wrong, absolute, or binding over time. Social contract gives rise to the rule of law. The judges you mention in your third view, the intellectual conservatives, adhere to the text of the Constitution in order to uphold the rule of law, not shifting morality, and that is what the framers of the Constitution intended to be binding on future generations. Out of necessity, then, you implicitly redefine rule of law to be "moral view”; otherwise, there would be no way to support your position that judges often find the Constitution requires “moral” decisions. Such relativism approaches nihilism.
People like Tribe, possibly including you, luxuriate in the reflected light of your own magnificence, consumed with self-regard for your ability to fully understand the extent of man—even from the bottom of your narrow potholes of existence. After all, you have good intentions. Such wise and good demigods would never abuse power. Indeed, you have the ability to legislate fashion laws perfectly on an ad hoc basis merely by studying contemporary “moral” principles. But where do you find these contemporary principles? On the east coast? In your neighborhood? At the cocktail party? At the peace rally, among other libertine socialists? In those “flyover states”? Within academia? As depicted on television? As determined by a fairly recent, perfectly scientific and universally accepted study? Eh, too restrictive for you. In your head. That's it. But you assert contemporary moral principles "have nothing to do with personal political views." Yeah, and I’m a Chinese jet pilot. The fact is Tribe and friends have little regard for the foundation of this country’s long history of liberty and prosperity, the rule of law. This is the only thing that keeps flawed, self-interested, and overly self-assured mortals from quickly encroaching on individual liberty and subjecting others to their superior judgment.
I suspect that, deep down, you and Tribe consciously prefer the idea of molding society to fit your personal understanding of contemporary moral/political principles with little or no rule of law restriction at all—to use the legal system as a tool for imposing good deeds on others at will. This is just a guess, but it can be inferred from 1) the unquestioned self-certainty that loosely defined “contemporary morals” can be accurately divined and then easily fashioned into just and equitable law, 2) a readily apparent religious belief in the conceit that government involvement only assists liberty and prosperity, and, possibly, 3) an apparent unacknowledged fear of “too much” individual liberty. Freedom from government means a lot of scary people running around doing “immoral things” like reciting the Pledge of Allegiance or setting their own rules for private golf tournaments.
Epilogue: No amount of reasoned argument would work with Tad. He had his perceptual blinders on. Whenever he lost a point, he just blobbed over like Jell-O and formed a new one. That is because, unknown to him, he was fundamenally dishonest. That intellectual dishonesty allowed him to adopt any position in the moment, depending upon utility--sort of like those I mentioned above who think like Laurence Tribe.
Posted by: rdbrewer at
07:55 AM
| Comments (102)
Post contains 1090 words, total size 7 kb.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 15, 2011 07:59 AM (swuwV)
Having a hard time writing "because of Republicans" there, dunce?
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 15, 2011 08:00 AM (dbs/z)
Posted by: real joe at January 15, 2011 08:03 AM (IpIBJ)
And yet it is progressives and liberals who want to turn us all into economic slaves of the state. It is not slavery that they are so opposed to, as much as it is private ownership of slaves.
Posted by: real joe at January 15, 2011 08:04 AM (IpIBJ)
What does the light bulb have to do with the U. S. Constitution?
"Progressives" banned the former and are working very hard to ban the latter.
Posted by: CheeseRadish at January 15, 2011 08:05 AM (4ucxv)
Posted by: mallfly at January 15, 2011 08:06 AM (bJm7W)
Spurred to action by their *gasp* Christian beliefs. Someone get the troll some smelling salts.
Posted by: CheeseRadish at January 15, 2011 08:06 AM (4ucxv)
Posted by: Geronimo at January 15, 2011 08:06 AM (SI0+B)
Posted by: Mr. Hand at January 15, 2011 08:08 AM (F95bj)
If a dirty ranting bum on the street came up to and began arguing politics with you, would you stand there and argue with him?
Posted by: ye olde soothsayer at January 15, 2011 08:08 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: mallfly at January 15, 2011 08:13 AM (bJm7W)
Posted by: sTevo at January 15, 2011 08:17 AM (wdthA)
Jeebus Priebus..this actually is JFK's essay on his application to Harvard, and not an Iowahawk parody:
The reasons that I have for wishing to go to Harvard are several. I feel that Harvard can give me a better background and a better liberal education than any other university. I have always wanted to go there, as I have felt that it is not just another college, but is a university with something definite to offer. Then too, I would like to go to the same college as my father. To be a "harvard man" is an enviable distinction, and one that I sincerely hope I shall attain.
April 23, 1935
John F. Kennedy
This makes me want Jug Ears school records released even more
Posted by: beedubya at January 15, 2011 08:18 AM (AnTyA)
This is the problem with contemporary education.
I read an article a few years back about students taking a film criticism class. They were shown a Hitchcock film, and afterward they had a long debate about the racist subtexts and memes and so on in the film. They said nothing about plot, casting, lighting, film style, etc. The author noted that students these days are taught to "deconstruct" everything, but never actually see what the author/artist/etc. intended.
My liberal arts college experience was like that. We were never taught to examine books or ideas in the milieu in which they came to be, but from our own modern perspective. We deconstructed without having the knowledge of construction.
This is how an educated moron like Bill Maher can say that the Founders thought of slaves as 3/5th of a person. He's reading the Constitution as a 21st century atheist "comedian," not as someone coming to terms with the reality of slavery in 18th century America. If he bothered to learn the construction before he began his deconstruction, he'd know that slave owners wanted their slaves counted as full people, and abolitionists of the time wanted slaves not counted at all. So, from his modern deconstructionist point of view, slave owners actually valued African-Americans more than the Founding Fathers. Never mind that the 3/5th clause was designed to keep the documented southern population low, and therefore eventually allow a way to outlaw slavery.
Your debater is in a similar position--deconstructing without knowing the construction. It's a dangerous way to look at history, and I'm annoyed at the Republicans for censoring the Constitution when they read it and therefore pandering to that same stupid deconstructionist mindset.
Posted by: Palandine at January 15, 2011 08:19 AM (g7D8V)
Ann Coulter's Treason gives a conservative view. I don't know how comprehensive WRT the actual proceedings, but Coulter will definitely give you the counter-narrative.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 15, 2011 08:19 AM (swuwV)
Judges have zero buisness applying "morality" or any other squishy method in judging cases. Their sole responsibility is to apply the law as it is written, and that applies even more so with the Supreme Court.
That has been our problem for a long time. Judges write their opinions into their decisions and those "opinions" are based on what they consider to be the desired outcome of the case. That is absolutely what this Republic was not founded on and what the real law is not supposed to be.
When judges do this we are forced into a nation of men with rulers rather than impartial laws. There are levels in the law where "outcome" and "morality" may be considered. Cops may elect not to arrest in questionable cases, DAs may elect not to prosecute, and juries may elect not to convict. But even those should be used very sparingly or we wind up with the case we had last week in NYC where a murderer was released based on a defense that he feared the cops would violate him with a broomstick. Jury nullification at its worse.
But as I said, there is absolutely no place for this with judges.
Posted by: Vic at January 15, 2011 08:20 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: sdsali at January 15, 2011 08:22 AM (LLc0r)
9 OT: I need a good recommendation for a book about the McCarthy investigations. Not the liberal propaganda I was taught in school. Anyone help?
Posted by: Geronimo at January 15, 2011 12:06 PM (SI0+B)
Ann Coulter wrote a good one. You'll have to look it up yourself.Posted by: Ed Anger at January 15, 2011 08:22 AM (7+pP9)
Well written law shouldn't need any interpretation. As we've seen in the past few generations, far too many judges have seen fit to substitute their version of the Constitution for the plain wording of the original document. The Fourteenth Amendment is a good example. The average American would read this as prohibiting "anchor babies", which is the clear intention of the Framers. Someone merely passing through America happens to produce an American citizen? I think not.
We've shifted away from legal absolutes into the dangerous grey area of gauzy, feel-good, "I'm better than you because I'm more compassionate" jurisprudence. Substituting ones' own moral judgement for the rule of law, in this case the foundation of our entire legal system, renders the Constitution effectively null. This leads to groups like CAIR seeking to overturn Oklahoma's State Question No. 755 prohibiting the use of Sharia law in court (link). Having gone through all the legal steps to pass this law, it's now on hold.
We've managed to reach the point where our own law is being used against us. This has happened because we now teach Constitutional case law instead of the Constitution and the writings of the Founders. This is the very serious flaw that Originalists are trying to correct.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at January 15, 2011 08:22 AM (b6qrg)
That's an essay? It reminds me of Ralphie's homework assignment essay where he waxed eloquent for a Red Ryder BB gun.
That was pathetic. Truly. I guess they make presidents exactly the way they used to.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 15, 2011 08:25 AM (swuwV)
Turns out the Constitution really was a suicide pact. Sigh.
Posted by: CheeseRadish at January 15, 2011 08:26 AM (4ucxv)
9 OT: I need a good recommendation for a book about the McCarthy investigations. Not the liberal propaganda I was taught in school. Anyone help?
Blacklisted by History, by M. Stanton Evans
...Coulter used it as her primary source material for her book
It will blow your fucking mind. The first few pages alone.completely blow the libtard narrative out of the water.
Evans, a liberal, actually went into the project thinking believing the BS about McCarthy...and through his very, very extensive research shows how the left and the media (but I repeat myself) completelyspun things way, way out
Posted by: beedubya at January 15, 2011 08:28 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: archie bunker at January 15, 2011 11:58 AM (0YS61)
Thank the Bible Thumpers, dunce. Not the commie-loving, big statist atheist 'liberals' you love.
Oh, and that Republican abolitionist hillbilly from Illinois.
Posted by: nickless at January 15, 2011 08:34 AM (MMC8r)
Blacklisted by History, by M. Stanton Evans
http://tinyurl.com/5rytoaw
Posted by: Vic at January 15, 2011 08:35 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: SurferDoc at January 15, 2011 08:38 AM (o3bYL)
Posted by: SurferDoc at January 15, 2011 08:39 AM (o3bYL)
Posted by: Brian at January 15, 2011 08:41 AM (sYrWB)
Whether there are 'founding principles' which should be adhered to, or if the Con is a 'living document' where judges can and should Wing It
pssssst: most students / people don't care
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, not yet retired at January 15, 2011 08:43 AM (UqKQV)
29 9 "Witness" by Whitaker Chambers is a great account of the controversies of the era if not of McCarthy Hearings in detail.
The Chambers bio by Sam Tanenhaus is a great complement to "Witness", as is "Perjury, The Hiss-Chambers Case"
Posted by: beedubya at January 15, 2011 08:44 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: Brenden at January 15, 2011 08:44 AM (oribW)
Markie Marxist sez: "The US Constitution is made out of Silly Putty as far as we Marxists are concerned. Forget all that nonsense about it having to be changed by Congress with an amendment, and ratified by the states, and all that. We can change it as we please via the US Supreme Court, either actively or passively. We have."
"Take the right to keep and bear arms for example. With us, it's the crime of keeping and bearing arms. We call that crime "gun possession" and we send people to jail for it every day, so, no right to keep and bear arms there. We Marxists own the US Constitution, and we can do whatever we want to do with it. Sometimes we just make stuff up and say it's in the Constitution, other times stuff is there, but we just ignore it. It's like it's made out of Play-Doh or something equally malleable. Silly String maybe. Whatever."
Posted by: Chas at January 15, 2011 08:45 AM (D1yfa)
Posted by: Geronimo at January 15, 2011 08:45 AM (SI0+B)
( long time ago, though : 1973-ish, before total mental rot had set in )
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, not yet retired at January 15, 2011 08:50 AM (UqKQV)
Posted by: Tigtog at January 15, 2011 08:50 AM (fy8R6)
#1 post
FREED THE SLAVES
1. Republican's freed the slaves by enslaving thousands of young yankees with a draft that was unpopular and got many of them killed and maimed.no one wanted to "free the slaves" down at the citizen level.
2. committed acts of war on American's that wrecked the country and then committed acts of retribution (reconstruction) that further wrecked the southern states for years after.
3. The DEMOCRATIC party owned and worked slaves and started the war that caused all the above to take place. Then ran Jim Crow laws and segregation that deprived the "freed slaves" their rights.
Ya cannot go back 146 years and make the statement that liberals and progressives freed the slaves without appearing quite ignorant.
Constitution: One man's moral decision is another man's depraved decision.
Posted by: HEP-T at January 15, 2011 08:51 AM (9G/0v)
In Vision of the Annointed, Thomas Sowell does an excellent job of explaining how the left completely disregards history. Their belief is that they exist in a vacuum, that thousands and thousands of years of human progress should not impact them in the slightest. They know better.
My nephew married a daughter of Israelis. She speaks fluent hebrew. Her grandparents left the US to populate the new state. Her parents immigrated here. She rejects everything except radical liberalism. Actually she is hostile to it. It's interesting to me that she rejects with vigor and hatred 6000 years of her own history after 7 years of Harvard.
Liberalism is like the Borg. It wipes out all other thought, loyalty, identity, appreciation, culture to wash it's minions in the kool-aid of it's own changing pathos.
Posted by: dagny at January 15, 2011 08:51 AM (+Z6ve)
Want to change how it's to be interpreted? It's called an "Amendment." Turns out the Fathers even designed the process for changing it to suit different times, only the tyrants in our midst deem that process too open to the People.
We've (and by "we've" I mean they've" which is to say "Not the People") have been violating the Constitution for generations. We've (which is to say "the People") have been permitting it for exactly as long.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 15, 2011 08:52 AM (swuwV)
j/k -- excellent analysis. Very good! Keep it up!
Posted by: prettypinkfluffypanties at January 15, 2011 08:52 AM (cQfrc)
Posted by: cali grump at January 15, 2011 08:54 AM (hL0k8)
Posted by: eman at January 15, 2011 08:54 AM (0aJSF)
14 When do we get to "insure domestic tranquility" though pharmaceuticals?
I hope it comes after we insure domestic tranquility through world wide military might and superior weaponry to ensure the peace.
I smell a new and costly long term weapons race now that the China has decided to play the word domination game.
Posted by: melvin at January 15, 2011 08:55 AM (3OCZw)
Over the holidays, I had a discussion with my libtard nephew and it got around to McCarthy.
I explained how most of what he believed was complete rot. Even after that, he asked if it were such BS ...how do I explain that McCarthy -the SENATOR- ruined the lives of so many people in Hollywood with his HOUSE Un-American Activities Commission (HUAC)?
...and the libtard nephew actually has a PhD
Posted by: beedubya at January 15, 2011 08:55 AM (AnTyA)
Like with all things Left, it's just an excuse for authoritarianism.
There are certain breaths that the Constitution never seems to take. Like, for instance, the 14th amendment's birth citizenship provision doesn't apply to illegal aliens.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 15, 2011 08:57 AM (BvBKY)
I'd also like to see someone ask him a question that requires doing a little fraction arithmetic, which I can guarantee people lies outside of his very limited abilities.
...which would explain his "insurance rates will go down 3000%" remark
Posted by: beedubya at January 15, 2011 09:02 AM (AnTyA)
I was "conscience dreaming" last about Megyn Kelly wearing nothing but her school marm glasses while I was "with" my wife
..is that wrong?
Posted by: beedubya at January 15, 2011 09:04 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: eman at January 15, 2011 09:05 AM (0aJSF)
The RNC just elected a democrat to head the RNC.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at January 15, 2011 12:53 PM (0fzsA)
Yes, yes, this was all known before. I don't have all of the details but I do remember the deal with the eminent domain case.
Guess what? It was about eminent domain. Actual "public use". Sorry. Conservatives are against eminent domain for "public benefit" but not for "public use". "Public use" is actually in the Constitution.
So that tells me the little article is not honest and I don't need to bother tracking down the truth of the other claims. There's nothing that pisses me off more than when I have to track down the truth of assertions myself. Dishonesty is not becoming.
Bottom line: If he's a Democrat, then he's the kind of Democrat the Wisconsin Republican party is perfectly happy with.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 15, 2011 09:07 AM (BvBKY)
I was "conscience dreaming" last about Megyn Kelly wearing nothing but her school marm glasses while I was "with" my wife
..is that wrong?
Yes
Posted by: dagny at January 15, 2011 09:07 AM (+Z6ve)
Or how you can add ~35 million new members to the participant rolls and actually reduce program costs.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 15, 2011 09:08 AM (swuwV)
Or how you can add ~35 million new members to the participant rolls and actually reduce program costs.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 15, 2011 01:08 PM (swuwV)
The first was stupidity, the second was dishonesty.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 15, 2011 09:10 AM (BvBKY)
Only an Ivy school could give that a B+.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 15, 2011 09:11 AM (swuwV)
Posted by: melvin at January 15, 2011 09:12 AM (3OCZw)
must be a stone cold bitch typing with that droolcup getting in the way. Now, fuck off.
Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at January 15, 2011 09:13 AM (eCAn3)
Slavery had become based on land-owning slave-owning aristocrats by the 1820s. and this elite could set prices and control the labor market in the South
The Civil War, I hope everyone knows, was fought to stop the expansion of slavery --NOT to free the slaves. Unable to expand, it was believed that slavery would wither away in a generation or two.
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, not yet retired at January 15, 2011 09:14 AM (UqKQV)
Posted by: SurferDoc at January 15, 2011 09:15 AM (o3bYL)
Ever hear a judge rule thus, "I personally hate the death penalty and would abolish it in a second if I could, but the population supports it so I will rule against my own feelings."
Yeah, me neither.
Posted by: Have Blue at January 15, 2011 09:18 AM (mV+es)
Note reference to American Revolution...that's how you know it's EVIL.
Posted by: CheeseRadish at January 15, 2011 09:18 AM (4ucxv)
Raymond Royal Marshall, sidekick and engineer for syndicated talk show host Neal Boortz, has died.
Pete Spriggs, program director for AM750 and now 95.5 FM News/Talk WSB, said he collapsed at his Atlanta home and was pronounced dead at Grady Hospital at about 1 a.m. early Saturday morning.
Assistant Program Director Condace Pressley said it was too soon to pinpoint cause of death. He was 43.
----
43?! Gulp!
Posted by: Tami at January 15, 2011 09:22 AM (VuLos)
He's magicked! He commands morals by his birth! When are you wingnuts gonna get it?
Posted by: LC LaWedgie at January 15, 2011 09:23 AM (kb0wl)
Geronimo, you can also read Roy Cohn's book about McCarthy (after all, he was there) and a book that I remember as "When Even Angels Wept" by "Lately Thomas" (something like that.) Avoid any book recommended by the NY Times. Stanton Evans book is definitely first choice, though.
Posted by: mallfly at January 15, 2011 09:24 AM (bJm7W)
Posted by: CheeseRadish at January 15, 2011 09:25 AM (4ucxv)
Posted by: CheeseRadish at January 15, 2011 01:25 PM (4ucxv)
Would there also be quite a few hunting deaths in the Alaska number? Not something Hawaii is known for.
Posted by: Tami at January 15, 2011 09:27 AM (VuLos)
Shhhh
Posted by: AmishDude at January 15, 2011 09:30 AM (BvBKY)
Posted by: CheeseRadish at January 15, 2011 09:31 AM (4ucxv)
The rules will fail of their purpose if you keep jacking around with their interpretation in courts. Legislatures are created for that purpose. People can contribute to the process, and everyone knows when the rules change. They can adjust their conduct and make new predictions.
When courts stray into the arena of making judgments other than those most adhering to the existing legislative moral judgments (as reflected in laws and constitutions), they may please a lot of people (even - on occasion - a majority), but they really fuck up the predictability part. That's why free-rein judicial law-making is costly to society.
That's all.
Posted by: Roger at January 15, 2011 09:34 AM (tAwhy)
Thanks for sharing that, rdbrewer.
About those blinders: Pretend you're a judge, and try coming up with an example that he can relate to. For example, would it reflect contemprary moral views to prohibit people from cheering for a sports team outside their market? Think about it -- a child living in the Buffalo area will take a lot of teasing if he goes to school in Miami Dolphins clothes. He's an outcast in a world of Bills fans. Only an abusive parent would permit their child to go out of the house like that! And for the child to truly feel like he fits in, the adults must also cheer for the same teams, with fines or jail time for anyone wearing the wrong team's logos and colors (unless they have the proper waivers, of course).
Of course it's ridiculous -- but hypothetically, why not?
Posted by: FireHorse at January 15, 2011 09:36 AM (sWynj)
Or kicked out for wearing a Steelers (Franco Harris) jersey to a Seattle school:
Steelers fan sent home from Seahawks-crazed school for jersey
The reception was anything but immaculate Friday, when seventh-grader Grendon Bailie wore a Franco Harris Steelers jersey to his middle school in Tacoma, Wash., on Seattle Seahawks Appreciation Day.
Grendon, 13, scored no points with administrators, who barred him from classes for not following Truman Middle School's directive that Seahawks jerseys or colors would be the only permitted exceptions from the dress code at the public school.
Posted by: Tami at January 15, 2011 09:40 AM (VuLos)
Posted by: dagny at January 15, 2011 09:43 AM (+Z6ve)
Note reference to American Revolution...that's how you know it's EVIL.
Posted by: CheeseRadish
Thanks! I might even have enough fabric on hand to make that, spending cuts, you know.
Posted by: Helen in MD at January 15, 2011 09:43 AM (okCHU)
Posted by: Steph at January 15, 2011 09:43 AM (KqBTY)
Posted by: JEA at January 15, 2011 09:45 AM (J73wL)
So in Alaska, that death trap, .02% is the death rate, while in Hawaii, the death rate is .0028%.
Sounds like a huge difference right?
No. They're BOTH microscopic. It's a lie of statistics. And gun-control psychos want to move heaven and earth to move it a few more decimals.
The canard of 'if it saves even just one life' is just that, a canard. Taking away everyone else's property and liberty to pursue a microscopic benefit is not in any rational sense a fair trade.
(And don't forget that some of those deaths are criminals stopped in the act, which I will say is of definite benefit to society.)
Posted by: nickless at January 15, 2011 09:46 AM (MMC8r)
So just who is the Guardian of Morality? YOU?
Posted by: JEA at January 15, 2011 01:45 PM (J73wL)
Relative morality isn't morality asshole, it's opinion.
Posted by: dagny at January 15, 2011 09:47 AM (+Z6ve)
The Left thinks just like the Islamists.
They think 'big picture' and the ends always justify the means. They will happily sacrifice their own people if gains them political power.
To the Left, sacrificing a congressman is a pretty good trade-off if they get more gun control and it causes their political opposition to tone down their criticism or even shut up completely.
What's funny is that the rank & file Democrats (and gays and blacks and...) will never admit they're fodder for the radical Left agenda just like the typical muslim is fodder for the Islamist movement.
Posted by: ye olde soothsayer at January 15, 2011 09:48 AM (uFokq)
Oh, and I thought Obama was from Chicago (even a policy-setter there). Wanna compare on that number?
Posted by: nickless at January 15, 2011 09:49 AM (MMC8r)
Many of us posted early in this event that this had to have come from a pre-scripted plan. There were just too many idiots spouting the same crap too soon.
Posted by: Vic at January 15, 2011 09:51 AM (M9Ie6)
The Left, the Democrats, love creating martyrs just as much as the Muslim radicals love creating their martyrs.
Posted by: ye olde soothsayer at January 15, 2011 09:51 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Have Blue at January 15, 2011 09:53 AM (mV+es)
Posted by: Vic at January 15, 2011 01:51 PM (M9Ie6)
Rush contends that because they all think exactly the same way, they didn't need a script....it just rolls off all their tongues at the same time in the same way.
Posted by: Tami at January 15, 2011 09:53 AM (VuLos)
Posted by: dagny at January 15, 2011 10:00 AM (+Z6ve)
ChimpyMcBusHitlerBurton? Doesn't exist.
ObamaJoker? Tuskeegee, Hiroshima, and The Killing Fields in one.
And since the media is them, they don't have to break the bubble.
Sarah Palin's only done it by laughing at them at a time when she couldn't be ignored, therefore, Public Enemy #1, and off goes the lunacy.
Posted by: nickless at January 15, 2011 10:01 AM (MMC8r)
The system is based on persuasion, expressed through elections and majority agreement.
Call it whatever you like, anything else is Mandarinism.
Posted by: toby928™ at January 15, 2011 10:02 AM (S5YRY)
Posted by: toby928™ at January 15, 2011 10:03 AM (S5YRY)
The banning of lightbulbs and the war on McDonalds indicates the experiment has failed.
Posted by: CheeseRadish at January 15, 2011 10:04 AM (4ucxv)
I was working on my taxes yesterday using TurboTax and there was something I had not seen before... a special credit for buying a house in DC.
...gee...isn't it Congress who establishes these credits??
Posted by: beedubya at January 15, 2011 10:08 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: CheeseRadish at January 15, 2011 10:12 AM (4ucxv)
So just who is the Guardian of Morality? YOU?
If we actually just take the Constitution at its face value and don't try to impart emanations from penumbras, nobody has to divine morality. Particularly not trumped-up lawyers.Posted by: nickless at January 15, 2011 10:12 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Vic at January 15, 2011 01:51 PM (M9Ie6)
Never underestimate the power and stupidity of the liberal hive-mind complex.
Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at January 15, 2011 10:23 AM (eCAn3)
That was NOT the intent of the founders. That was expressed by a great many of the founders at the time. If Jefferson had been as smart as he is made out to be he would have pushed for impeachment of Marshall and a new law in congress and an amendment specifying how the document was to be interpreted.
We did have one or two justices after that who made up law based on their opinions rather than what the test said, but for the most part they hung with the meaning as written. That is up until the 30s when FDR hit town.
He had 4 terms to pack the court and a rubber stamp Senate to help him. It would take a 60 conservative vote Senate and a 4 term Ronald Reagan to undo what FDR did. That will never happen.
Posted by: Vic at January 15, 2011 10:29 AM (M9Ie6)
The "Tribe" faction just wants to WIN, no matter the cost. They don't give a damn about the consequences.
The only "logic" behind the "living constitution" crowd is "it lets us get what WE want." The really, really sick thing is that it's become, as far as I can tell, the "standard model" at law schools (because it benefits lawyers).
I don't know how to repair that damage, but I do know that if we don't, it will be fatal.
Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 15, 2011 10:56 AM (bxiXv)
Posted by: ExExZonie at January 15, 2011 11:36 AM (tIssx)
Posted by: Jaynie59 at January 16, 2011 04:23 AM (jaT5b)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2787 seconds, 230 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: archie bunker at January 15, 2011 07:58 AM (0YS61)